Pew: Liberals most intolerant online

posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound like tolerance to you? A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects

9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive

8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows

5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends

4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter. I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements. I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life. Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing. I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too. It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals. While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative? Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine. Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out. They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice. The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

One of the few things the right really does better than the left is on disagreements. The difference is like night and day.

Don’t tow the line on a hardcore left-wing site and you’re LUCKY if you just get called an idiot, if not ‘racist’ and a half-dozen similar things.

Do the same on a hardcore right-wing site…and the worst you can expect is grammar-school insults and canned talking points. And most right-wing sites at least make SOME attempt to keep the uber-extremists quiet – you have to say something pretty d@mn vile to get banned. (exhibit A: the ‘crazy soldier’ thread that AP had to close after ~504 comments.)

My kids have suffered at school and socially because I’ve said something about my 11-year-old having a better understanding of economics than Obama and GASP, supporting senate bill 5 in Ohio. Teachers were really grumpy about that. They can say what they like, but I have to bite my tongue so my kids don’t pay. One of my kids was “uninvited” to a bday party because the mom found out I was republican. shesshhh.

Um, ever heard of Democratic Underground, one of the most prolific left-wing sites on the internet? From their terms of service:

Don’t be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here.

Meanwhile, Hot Air, for years, has allowed left-wing trolls to run wild until they cross the lines of truly smearing members or staff.

Ed, is commenters here outing liberal commenters’ here’s facebook pages, getting the wrong one of a woman in Africa, asking if they have any white friends, then talking about how much harder it is to drive off Hot Air’s gay commenters because they have no shame really on?

Are we really going to intimidate liberal commenters here by outing their real identities (and getting it wrong and linking to some other woman’s FB instead)?

Everyone knows that liberals are the most intolerant people around. This has never been a secret. Only the idiots believe that liberals care about anything other than their own petty (and often perverted) desires and forcing everyone else to satisfy them. Liberals hate children. They just love to go after children since they are the only ones liberals can generally best in intellectual arguments and try and pervert the youngsters before they know better. Liberals are intolerant child abusers in the deepest sense of the word.

I met a woman a few years back, one day, while watching TV I made a comment about the “moonbat” who must have wrote the script. She claimed, I am a liberal and I take offense to your remark. She broke up with me the next day! Winning!

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.
======================================================

So,in the warped Lefty view-point,Rush would be considered
a perfect example of the “Fairness Doctrine”!!

If you philosphy is “just leave me alone” when it comes to politics, I think by default you are going to be more tolerent. If you have this philosphy, you are more likely to be conservative (not sure how you can think this way and be a neo-liberal).

I’ve always wondered if “intolerant” is the correct word to use to describe them. They are intolerant, yes, but the attitude springs not from a desire to hear other views (they really do), but from the fact that they view themselves as so superior that any view they hold must be the correct, superior, and morally sound view, such that anybody who disagrees with them is, by definition, wrong, ignorant, and possibly evil or racist.

Intolerance isn’t the issue, it’s unwarranted self-importance and the superiority complex they possess, which is reinforced by the media’s treatment of liberalism. They’re not intolerant, they just don’t know any better, hence they are the ones who should be called “ignorant.”

But yes, as a blanket descriptive statement, they sure are intolerant.

Oh and Random. Since it looks like we missed each other on the last thread. Normally I would have brought your death wish, threat what ever it was over here for you. Can’t do that anymore, you’ll just have to fetch it yourself.

Everyone knows that liberals are the most intolerant people around. This has never been a secret. Only the idiots believe that liberals care about anything other than their own petty (and often perverted) desires and forcing everyone else to satisfy them. Liberals hate children. They just love to go after children since they are the only ones liberals can generally best in intellectual arguments and try and pervert the youngsters before they know better. Liberals are intolerant child abusers in the deepest sense of the word.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM

What do you call those who teach their impressionable children they (and often the ones these lovely, loving children care deeply about) will be tortured and burned for all eternity if they don’t behave? What about those why lie to their children and promise them a nonexistent eternal reward of bliss for behaving, thus leaving the children less psychologically free to pursue enjoyment and their own true natures in this, the one and only life they will ever have? What about those who, for that matter and without ever gaining consent, cut off part of their children’s penis because God said to do it?

I’ve always wondered if “intolerant” is the correct word to use to describe them. They are intolerant, yes, but the attitude springs not from a desire to hear other views (they really do), but from the fact that they view themselves as so superior that any view they hold must be the correct, superior, and morally sound view, such that anybody who disagrees with them is, by definition, wrong, ignorant, and possibly evil or racist.

Intolerance isn’t the issue, it’s unwarranted self-importance and the superiority complex they possess, which is reinforced by the media’s treatment of liberalism. They’re not intolerant, they just don’t know any better, hence they are the ones who should be called “ignorant.”

But yes, as a blanket descriptive statement, they sure are intolerant.

mintycrys on March 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Intolerant is the correct word to describe them. Hence, their desire to banish anybody who espouses an opposing view. You’re right about the moral superiority but they cannot tolerate the existence of what they deem as inferior.

I have only unfriended one person on facebook, and that was over the OWS movement. This person fell for that OWS crap, lock, stock and barrel. This person couldn’t persuade me to change my opinion of the OWS movement so this person told me I was free to unfriend them so I did.

Ed, is commenters here outing liberal commenters’ here’s facebook pages, getting the wrong one of a woman in Africa, asking if they have any white friends, then talking about how much harder it is to drive off Hot Air’s gay commenters because they have no shame really on?

Resist we much? Another escapee from the Tower of Babble-on.

Are we really going to intimidate liberal commenters here by outing their real identities (and getting it wrong and linking to some other woman’s FB instead)?

I’m not saying that this shouldn’t have been noted but isn’t this like saying water is wet or grass is green? The only ones that think that libtards aren’t intolerant are the libs themselves. I mean after the filth that we saw after Breitbart died is anyone surprised?

The real issue is an inability to win an argument. When a position is argued honestly the liberal position just about never wins when it is debated. This is also why how things are labeled is so important to them.

I asked her last night if she counted ANY conservatives amongst her friends-and then mentioned that I counted militant Lesbians amongst mine. I also pointed out that I was more likely to defriend a Ron Paul supporter than I was a liberal.

I used to attend the Chicago Academy for the visual and Performing Arts during the early-mid 1980′s.
I have been friended-and then quickly defriended- by former classmates(maybe a dozen) who refuse to associate with a conservative.
The NERVE of me actually thinking for myself.
///

Not anything really new in this research. It is clear that they are attempting to do to Rush Limbaugh what they did to Don Imus or Laura Schlessinger by not addressing the comments just throw up boycotts and demands of public officials in faux outrage that somebody would dare call Sandra Fluke a slut when she so obviously is one.

Intolerant is the correct word to describe them. Hence, their desire to banish anybody who espouses an opposing view. You’re right about the moral superiority but they cannot tolerate the existence of what they deem as inferior.

Bitter Clinger on March 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Which is why I’m wondering if the root problem is simply being intolerant of something they view as inferior because they have an actual case to be made that what they disagree with is truly inferior, or if they’re so ignorant that they really have no leg to stand on with regards to calling ANYTHING inferior

I wonder which they would find to be more offensive, being called “intolerant,” or “ignorant.”

I guess I’m saying that referring to them as “intolerant” might presuppose that they have a coherent worldview that can be compared to others, whereas “ignorance” just writes off their intolerance as irrationality, as they don’t know enough to be able to judge anything they’re unfamiliar with, in the first place.

Leftist are the fringe of the democrat party. They are the tail currently leading the democrat party dog around. (I blame Soros money)

I know plenty of Liberals that are not intolerant of free speech, that like the 1st Amendment and the United States Constitution just fine. Unfortunately they will vote democrat in lock step out of habit or choosing lesser of two evils. PUMAS not withstanding.

It’s the progressive “left” that loathe the U.S. Constitution, and the 1st Amendment.

I defriended a liberal friend who posted political stuff all the time just to watch people fight with each other. Now, I didn’t really get the whole social media thing and didn’t know I could just block her which I would have done rather than defriending her. That just gave her an opportunity to call me out on Facebook and tell all her “friends” that I deleted her because of her political beliefs. So, mutual friends of ours were asking me what my problem was and a few of them defriended me in the process. It wasn’t really that I disagreed with her; I just didn’t want to see it anymore. It was CONSTANT. But, in the end, I was branded the jerk.

All this study really shows is that conservatives are far more likely to say something offensive online. ;-)

Also, I can’t help but wonder what the results of this survey would have been if it had been conducted online instead of by telephone. (The Pew folks talked to 1,352 people on landlines and 901 people on cellphones.)

Their World View is screwed up. No more good or evil. So moral relativism has lead to Political Correctness, and so called “tolorance” is whatever THEY define it to be. The COEXIST stickers on the Subarus and Prius’ are a prime example of “One of these things is not like the others”.

And “Diversity” is morality neutral, but they make it a religion. If a group of old white ladies from Toledo get together to sew a quilt, it’s not Diverse, but if you add a Islamic Radical Suicide bomber with them, then it’s suddenly diverse, but not a whole lot better.

The real issue is an inability to win an argument. When a position is argued honestly the liberal position just about never wins when it is debated. This is also why how things are labeled is so important to them.

NotCoach on March 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM

That’s mostly because they DON’T have a leg to stand on as far as logic goes. They argue their emotions out of total ignorance of things they claim to care about. The only line of attack they can successfully use is to restate the opponent’s position (because only their opponents HAVE a position), but restate it incorrectly so they can tear that strawman down, then shout down the other side after misrepresenting what he/she said. That wins arguments, in some places. Here is a quality post I culled from Gawker:

I’m surprised more non-righty pundits don’t come at this from the economic side: Who will be forced to pay for these mandated procedures? The woman. And what is the right’s biggest complaint about Obamacare? Mandating that citizens have to pay for health insurance.

Which way do you want your warped seesaw to tilt, cons? Right now it’s breaking in two.

The key phrase is “Mandating that citizens have to pay for health insurance,” but the operative word was “Mandating,” not “pay.” He’s assuming that conservatives think like he does (because there are no other rational viewpoints), and they object to the simple act of paying for things. Thus he misrepresents the argument out of sheer ignorance (or he’s disingenuous, but that might give too much credit to someone whose logical faculties seem to be dodgy, at best.

This is why I think calling liberals “intolerant” gives them a little too much credit. They simply don’t know any better. A government run by intolerants (plural noun) might be one that you hate, but still manages to do things correctly. One run by ignorants more closely resembles the one we have now.

Intolerant is the correct word to describe them. Hence, their desire to banish anybody who espouses an opposing view. You’re right about the moral superiority but they cannot tolerate the existence of what they deem as inferior.

Random, go Fluke yourself you liar. You come here, you and your cohort, to agitate, none other. You are not people, with mids, hearts and souls, you are the scum of nature, gnat, plankton and jelly fish banks.

May you self-destroy for your exploitative Utopian aims. May they starve you, you moochers, aided by the looters of the world, who themselves live like billonaires, based on nothing. See Obama.

I don’t hate you, I despise you more than all the leeches in the world. They are noble compared to you.

When a position is argued honestly the liberal position just about never wins when it is debated. This is also why how things are labeled is so important to them.

NotCoach on March 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM

There is no such thing as debating a liberal. You win one point, they change the subject to something completely irrelevant to the last point. Or they call you a racist or something.

The Fluke sham hearing is a case in point. The Congressional hearing was to discuss the constitutionality of forcing religious organizations to pay for birth control and aids for self-abortion. Dems didn’t want to debate that because they are clearly in the wrong so at the last minute Pelosi tried to replace a Constitutional scholar with Sandra Fluke, an activist for sexual issues, to talk about “banning birth control.”

Issa called Pelosi’s bluff and wouldn’t let Fluke speak so they held a sham Congressional hearing so that we all got to know about Ms. Flukes use of birth control under the guise of “womens’ health issues.”

How do you debate Ms. Fluke or any deranged liberal when they never stay on any one subject longer than it takes to parrot off a few popular lies before moving on to the next?

What about those parents that teach their children that they’ll die if the jump off a bridge? What about parents that tell their children that their quality of life will be bad if they don’t learn in school? What about parents that tell their children that they won’t have any friends if they’re mean?

Look it is not intolerant to unfriend people that use their facebook as a platform for politics you disagree with. I don’t want to read posts mocking Christianity or recalling Scott Walker. I can watch NBC for that.